isn't about time we admit that cameras aren't holding us back...

so i'm a few beers in...otherwise i woudln't have even done this thread...but i see so many threads where people are complaining about their cameras, and how they need the newest, latest, greatest...yeah, there are new gadgets and everything...but for the most part, i feel like 90% of what people are using cameras for could be done with a camera from 5 years ago...would it be a little bit tougher to accomplish, yeah...pretty much...but what are the things you can accomplish with a new camera that you couldn't with a camera that came out 2 years ago? is it all just cleaner ISO? educate me on what i'm missing out on...cause i'm due for a new camera soon...and i'm wondering if it's worth it to bother spending more for the latest, and greatest

DreDaze wrote in post #18628206
so i'm a few beers in...otherwise i woudln't have even done this thread...but i see so many threads where people are complaining about their cameras, and how they need the newest, latest, greatest...yeah, there are new gadgets and everything...but for the most part, i feel like 90% of what people are using cameras for could be done with a camera from 5 years ago...would it be a little bit tougher to accomplish, yeah...pretty much...but what are the things you can accomplish with a new camera that you couldn't with a camera that came out 2 years ago? is it all just cleaner ISO? educate me on what i'm missing out on...cause i'm due for a new camera soon...and i'm wondering if it's worth it to bother spending more for the latest, and greatest

My main camera is EIGHT years old and my second camera is THIRTEEN years old.

I started with a Practica fully manual camera for my first interchangable lens camera, I thought that one held me back from getting a lot of the shots I wanted, in 1985 I went to a Nikon EM and bought a motor winder, it was better but it still held me back, in 1991 I bought a Canon EOS 630 and a aftermarket zoom lens.
I thought it was a huge upgrade but slow focusing and sometimes bad metering when I trusted the auto metering were still holding me back.

In 1994 I bought a Canon A2E and several ultrasonic lenses, since that day it has been all on me, that camera was awesome, I was no longer losing shots to slow focusing and the exposure metering was great, only the price of film and processing were preventing me from getting just about any shot I wanted. Every camera I have used since then has been far more capable than me.

My current cameras are far better than I ever expected from a camera when I took my very first photos, any bad photos I get are purely due to me not using the right setting or just not being good enough. I still take a lot of bad photos but it is all on me.

john crossley wrote in post #18628213
My main camera is EIGHT years old and my second camera is THIRTEEN years old.

We must have the same cameras - my 7D is 8 years old and my 5D is almost 13 years old. I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not upgrading.

I've said the same thing many times.

No, you don't need the latest, greatest to make great pictures. But, most seem to think you do. Which is what makes the camera companies very happy.

"I wanna take my photography to the next level!!.......so I need the new.......blah....blah​.....blah...."

A great quote by one great photographer that says it all.

"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas

Be glad that you didn't post this in one of the gear talk forums. You would have been reamed a new... well, you know. Perhaps the capability asymptote explains the general doldrums in the market. Speaking for myself, I don't see a need to upgrade. Although there are times when I would have appreciated the wide-angle features of a 135 sensor. Not enough to drop $x,000 though.

I love the "next level" rationale. It's almost always a reflection of the photographer's skills and experience.

I think you need to decide if there is something in your photos that you feel needs to be better from a technical point of view (not artistic). Noise levels are getting lower as sensors improve, autofocus gets better as the processors get faster (better for wildlife and sports), and there is more resolution with each generation (so cropping leaves more detail). I've never quite agreed with the statement that the camera doesn't matter, it does or we'd all use point and shoot cameras. But at some point, if you have a good, somewhat new anyway, camera, the improvements from model to model become slight enough that upgrading isn't going to yield enough improvement to justify the cost.

It's the difference between gearheads and talented photographers. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking gearheads do not take great compositions. I've said it for years - focus on the picture you take, not the camera you hold.

My main camera is an old 5D2. I also use a 5D but it's IR converted, so limited to special shots. I also have first gen L lenses. No, not the bells and whistles of newer lenses. But you know what? It's good glass and they take good pics. I do all right. Fine art. If I were a production (wedding, event) photographer, I probably would benefit by having something newer.

Agree with the Ernst Hass quote. A excellent photog can take a great picture with a $15 disposable camera. A crappy photog can't, even when using a $6,000 state-of-the-art machine.

Your few beers did not cause you to see things differently - you see them quite clearly. Your few beers just allowed you to speak your mind not caring about the ignorance that might be slung your way.

I still dig out my 300D once in a while. Brings back memories of messing up with my first dslr.

I think the key is finding the equipment that best fits the way you see and work instead of hopping on the gadget go round because there will always be something newer and more technically advanced. That doesn't usually = better. Also the right camera for the type of work you are doing should be taken into consideration. The right tool for the look you are trying to achieve. I have a friend that shot an entire project with a Holga because it best fit what she was trying to say visually. In todays world many are going after the one size fits all auto everything camera which may or may not be right for what they are actually trying to achieve or that may not fit the way they see or work.

We could use your shot at https://www.flickr.com …/album-72157626344349796/ as an example of going at least two ways.

1. It's obvious your current equipment in your hards works just fine.
   
2. If you had a camera with better autofocus and fast long bursts you wouldn't have to sort through so many rejects to get a good one like this.
   

I only upgrade if the upgrade has a feature that I need/want for both what I photograph and how I photograpgh it. My latest upgrade (7d MKII-used) only happened by my 7d was going to cost more to repair than it was worth. I would prefer to stick with my current brand for obvious reasons, but IF, someone were to come out with a feature (or 2) that were really killer and actually made a large enough imapct, then I would really consider selling out and getting it, provided my current manuf. of choice wasnt the one that came up with it.
Give me half the size/weight on not only the camera but L quality lenses, and I would be there...until then..what I have works perfectly fine even though they aint the latest and greatest.

DreDaze wrote in post #18628206
isn't about time we admit that cameras aren't holding us back...

Blanket statements like this will almost always have exceptions.

There are times in my wildlife shooting when my cameras do 'hold me back' from getting the types of images that I want to create.

Some such instances involve some recent opportunities to photograph owls at nesting sites. . I've recently been shooting at two different nest sites, one a Barn Owl nest colony and the other a Great-horned Owl nest. . At each place, the owls are extremely nocturnal. . The adults do not show up at the nests until well after sunset, when dusk is well under way and complete darkness is not too far off.

There is still enough light for my autofocus to work, but the resultant images are absolutely deplorable, from an image-quality standpoint. . My primary objective is to capture the wonderfully intricate feather detail on the stunning plumage of the adult Barn Owls. . My sensor is not capturing all of the tiny little feather segments when I photograph the owls under such extreme low-light conditions.

If I had a camera that could capture extremely fine, intricate detail at very high ISOs, such as 51,200, and do so with no noise grain whatsoever, then I would be able to accomplish my objective on the Barn Owl shoot. . Because my bodies cannot produce the results I want at even 3200 ISO, I do feel as though my cameras are holding me back.

Whenever we want/need extremely high image quality, and we are shooting in extremely low light (like almost complete darkness), then how can one say that the cameras are not holding us back? . It's not like I can go there and shoot the owls in better light, because they don't come out of their holes until it is extremely dark. . Using flash is not a viable option because it startles the owls and causes them to behave unnaturally.

The above example is just one instance in which I feel that my camera is holding me back from accomplishing my objective. . There are other scenarios in which my current cameras hold me back but I don't feel like writing about all of those instances right now so I'll just wrap this post up for the time being.


.

Not sure, if a slightly different view is appreciated here. Yes, there is no reason why you can not create a great picture with a crappy camera. But camera technology is probably changing and improving at a speed never seen before. Within several years sensors improved incredibly - just look at the high iso that nowadays are completely normal on a decent priced body. Old cameras don't hold you back in your creative process - but the new stuff is really opening up new possibilities.

There is an other aspect: the mental confidence. If anybody of you did high (not top) performance sports know what I am taking about. In many sports the material doesn't really matter that much - especially if you are not a pro or competing at the olympics. However, knowing that you have the best available material gives you the confidence to perform at your peak (where ever this might be). Not much different for me and cameras.

Just saw Tom's post - now I don't feel as lonely with my view anymore.